“We were there and then (say) born in the express image and likeness of him by whom we received our spiritual birth possessing the same faculties & powers but in their infantile state yet susceptable of an elevation equal to that of those possessed by our Spiritual Father But in order to effect this we must needs be planted in a material tabernacle. Accordingly the great machine was set in motion whereby bodies for the immortal sons and daughters of God came into being…” (Lorenzo Snow, Feb. 14, 1842. Quoted by Van Hale)

Is the idea of the Great Machine more eternal than God’s godness?

Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

81 Responses to Mormonism and the “Great Machine”

Ralph,
I had a feeling that was the argument that you were going to present. So lets be fair here and just read the text for what it says and use your argument in each of these to see if it will hold up. So you say that all of these scriptures are referring to only the God that we have on this earth and our relationship with Him.
Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other Gods before me: Ok so this one might hold up. We only worship the God of Israel and none other. This is referring to who we worship and not His identity as the only God.

Exodus 8:6 There is no one like our God:
—–Ok so this says OUR God, but lets look at why it says our God. It says that because it is within a quote. Moses is speaking to Pharaoh about the plagues that will come upon Him in order to reveal that the only true God is that of Israel. He is saying that the plagues will reveal that the gods of Egypt have not power or authority of the Lord God of Aaaron and Moses. This is the exact context “For tomorrow,” he replied. And Moses said, “As you say-that you may know that there is none like the Lord our God; the frogs shall retreat from you and your courtiers and your people; they shall remain only in the Nile.” Remember, the God of the Hebrews was not the god of the Egyptians. That is why it says “The Lord our God”.

Duet 4:35 The Lord is God; there is no other besides Him.
—-So how do you get around this one? It doesn’t say “there is no God for us besides Him” or “there is no God in THIS heaven and THIS earth besides Him”. How do you wiggle out of that verse saying that there is no other God besides Him?

Duet 4:39 He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
—–If this verse said in THIS heaven and THIS earth than maybe you could try to make your argument, but the way that the prophet wrote this implies that there is only one heaven and one earth and one God for all.

Duet 32:39 See now that I, I am He, And there is no God besides Me.
—-Same thing here. It doesn’t say there is no god of THIS world besides Me. Its says there is NO God besides Me. Implying that He is the only God that exists.

Duet 6:4 Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (echad).
—- If you wanted to you could say that is was being specific to Israel and saying that their God is the God over them and that they are not allowed to worship any other gods.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock, besides our God?
—-Can you answer that?

1 Kings 8:59-60 And may these words of mine, which I have offered in supplicaton before the Lord, be close to the Lord our God day and night, that He may provide for His servant and for His people Israel, according to each days needs-to the end that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord alone is God, there is no other.
—-So if the LDS teaching are a restored version of what was practiced and taught during the OT times, than why didn’t they know to say “all the peoples of THIS earth”. Why did they say “the earth” and imply that it was the only one?

1 Chronicles 17: 20 O Lord, there is none like You, and there is no other God but You, as we have always heard.
—–This states that they have been taught from the earliest times that there is only ONE God. It doesn’t say only one God for Israel or one God of this specific world. It says there is no God besides You. That is it.

Isaiah states, “You alone, Lord, are God” (37:20), “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me” (43:10), “I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me” (44:6).
—-I don’t understand how you can get around these verses. None of them are even hinting at Him being a God specific to THIS world alone. They imply that He is the God of all creation that has ever existed in existence.

So how do you look at these verses and still come to your conclusions. You have to do a lot of back flips, shrugging of shoulders, and inserting meaning into these passages to make them fit what your doctrine wants to say is true.
Its almost like telling a child that Santa doesn’t exist and showing them that all along it was their parents putting the presents under the tree, but the child loves the idea of a magic Santa bringing presents that they continue to pretend that the story is really true. No matter how much that kid wants to believe its true, it will never be true.
Please look at the passages and read them for what they are. Be honest with yourself and quit seeing what you want to see. You are only hurting yourself.

Now Ralph…………………………
Concerning your whine about everyone else being able to use anecdotal information in their posts but you are criticized for doing like-wise. Here’s the difference as I see it.
When you use your “I talked to a Christian one time who said……………” you’re using it in such a way as to make it “authoritative”. No one is going to accept that Ralph as being definitive unless you have some actual referenced material from a reliable source backing it up.
For example, if I say that I talked to someone who said the members of the LDS church eat babies in their temple rituals, it means nothing. It would be crack-pot looney tunes stuff. If you’d say that you talked to a Christian who said that he/she could do whatever they wanted in terms of debauchery and licentiousness because they had accepted Jesus as their Savior, I’d say, “So what?”. It’s meaningless.
As to our topic at hand here. This idea that there are universal principles that govern the “gods” has no support in the Bible, the writings of the Church Fathers, the heretics or the history and traditions of the Christian church. It’s not even clever or creative speculation. It falls in line perfectly however with what Jesus said and the apostles wrote concerning false prophets.
So your defense of this mindless speculation regarding universal principles is to plead ignorance despite the fact that you’re suppose to have prophet and that the LDS church has Joseph Smith’s magic rock in its vault.
Ralph, go back to the Bible. Read it with fresh eyes. Put your Mormonism on the shelf and see God as to who He really is. Then you won’t have to come-up with all of these poorly crafted excuses, anecdotal reports and explanations in support of a false gospel propagated by false prophets.

cattyjane,
Good job and extraordinary patience!
But here’s the deal. Did the ancient Jews believe what Ralph is supporting as to the LDS position on the nature of God? Did the Jews in Jesus’ time support the LDS position on the nature of God? Did the first century Church support the LDS position on the nature of God? If we talked to orthodox Jews today, would their view of the nature of God be that of the LDS church.
Is there any where in the history and tradition of the Jews or the history and tradition of the Christian church where we see the LDS position supported. If we were to examine the Community of Christ or Temple Lot sects of Mormonism in regards to these things, would we see the LDS position?
The answer to all of this is a big fat “NO!”.
What you are experiencing with Ralph is what the Church Fathers experienced with the heretics. The heretics would torture the Scriptures to try and support their position. Sometimes you have to leave people in their ignorance however we have an obligation to keep trying and to defend the faith as it was delivered to the prophets and apostles in Christ.
Ralph has Mormonism in his brain. He can’t see past it regardless of what the Bible, the history and traditions of both the Jews and Christians tells us. He’s going to believe the man with the magic rock because he likes it.
However we have hope as long as he keeps showing-up here.
The more I deal with Mormons like Ralph, the more inclined I am to believe what Calvin had to say about “election”.

cattyjane,
The “god of this world” nonsense that Mormons pull out is as bogus as their “great apostasy”, “corrupted Biblical text” and “Emperor invented the Doctrine of the Trinity” suppositions.
Look what some direct questioning and seeking answers has done for you. I might add having an open mind to explore whether or not these claims by the LDS church are actually true is helpful. If a Mormon loses his/her fear of falling off the edge of the earth and into outer darkness, they have a good start on getting at the truth.
Unfortunately too many of them get so angry at having been deceived that they just throw in the towel on religion. But the Good News is that being a Christian isn’t belonging to the “one true” group. It’s an individual decision; coming to Christ in faith and being born again by the Spirit of God.

It really is interesting to note the responses by Mormons in these discussions. Ralph pretty much just said that when you don’t know an answer, its better to stay quiet. While true in some situations, here they need to have an answer. Why? Because without one, they look like they are making it up as they go along.

The appeal to Christ not answering the charges against him as an example for him not to answer the questions put forth here are unfounded, as Christ did answer. He always answered his critics and those who would harm him. Ralph’s statement really amounts to the sayings about how fools speak when they don’t have an answer.

Going back to my legal analogy, to defend a suit against you, you must do more than just deny the charges. There are burdens that have to be met: the accusing side must have proof to show the other side did it, and the defending side must either show there is not enough proof they did it or evidence to show they did not do it. Either way the defendant must do more than say “Nope, didn’t happen that way.” In other words, the defendant has to actually put together a coherent argument that what they say is true, and what the accusing side is not true.

Ralph has told us that he does not know about the principles in question and that those who have gone before him and Jesus do know about them. More legal parlance here, there is no material fact in question: Ralph can tell us nothing as to the genesis of the saving principles of his faith.

Now, it is true that we don’t know their genesis, either, we have enough to speculate and put forth an argument that they are simply made up doctrines of men. Briefly stating them, and this is by no means complete: the Biblical record showing there is one God (as Catty wonderfully outlined), evidence Smith was a swindler, evidence Young was power hungry, lack of evidence for anything in the Book of Mormon, etc. (not to mention the sheer lack of logic behind the principles that apparently form the salvation form for LDS).

Legally, hypothetically, there is enough information to make a case that Mormons are flat out wrong when it comes to defining the saving principles. If all they can answer is a throwing up of hands and meek “I don’t know” followed by a “I’ll find out when I’m gone” then they really cannot stand on anything offered by us. They offer no material defense, and Ralph even offered that our position may in fact be true. Its ultimately backed by a blind faith that is supported by an emotional tug.

This is a terribly weak position of defense. Christianity, by way of comparison, is solidly defended on all sides. While some of our answers do end up matters of faith, we have enough evidence from other sources to adequately offer an answer from which the accuser must consider.

That is a wonderful thing, to have such a competent and complete belief system such as Christianity. I pray Ralph and any other Mormons here may consider the evidence put in front of them and recognize that the emotional tug will not save them. Only Christ will.

MJP,
You and cattyjane have done a really eloquent job of laying out the facts and evidence but the problem is we are dealing with people who have bought Mormonism emotionally and are now trying to justify it with some form of rationality and logic that comes off looking incredibly stupid, inane and childish. For give my bluntness but sometimes I think it doesn’t penetrate their minds one bit these well reasoned out positions we present. We may as well be yelling “LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!” because that’s about the depth we’re getting from the Mormon side.
There is a whole classification of Mormons known as the naive true believers that have a totally different MO from the arrogant true believers.
“Every Mormon exists somewhere between True Believer and Doubter. We can describe his level of commitment three ways: The True Believer, The Moderate Believer, and The Doubter.”
“The hallmark of The True Believer is that he’s an evangelist. He is convinced he has found the way of truth and he is ready to share it with others. He may be bold or shy, confident or self-conscious – those are personality traits. But whatever his nature, he is disposed, to the best of his ability, to declare his confidence in Mormonism.”

“The Moderate Believer, on the other hand, is more restrained in his faith. He’s convinced in his own heart that Mormonism is the True Church, but he is tolerant of others. He understands that Mormonism is his religion. He believes it is true – perhaps “with every fiber of his being,” as Mormons are fond of saying – but he holds out the possibility that he may be wrong. He will be less inclined than the True Believer to “bear you his testimony,” though he probable would do so if you asked him.”

“The Doubter is no longer convinced that the Mormon Church is true. He continues to be a member, he may even go to church regularly, but he is no longer sure.”

Ralph,
I forgot to comment on your response with regards to the BoA.
Here is a link to a scholarly article written by Robert K. Ritner of the University of Chicago. The title is “The Breathing Permit of Hor” Among the Joseph Smith Papyri. This was published i the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Ritner was called upon to revisit the papyrus in order to provide an impartial reassessment of Baer’s translation due to the Egyptological advances of the past thirty-four years. This article provides some background information to the book of abraham, dissects the text and provides an accurate translation for the papyrus. The following quote taken from the final paragraph of the article was his conclusion. I hope that you will read the article yourself. It is very informative and shows why even if there are pieces missing from the book like you said, it wouldn’t change what the purpose of the book was and it wouldn’t change who the book was written about. So your missing pieces of this document do not provide a defense for JS foul translation of this document. This was sun god worship not worship of the Most High God of Israel.http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf
“As the reader can verify by comparison, the basic understand-
ing of the papyrus remains unchanged from Baer’s interpretation of thirty-five years ago.
The text is a formal document or “permit” created by Isis and copied by Thoth to assure
that the deified Hor regains the ability to breathe and function after death, with full mo-
bility, access to offerings, and all other privileges of the immortal gods. The implications,
basic symbolism, and intent of the text are certain”

What you wrote regarding the missing link of the BoA is right on. What this tells us has more to do with the mind-set of the true believing Mormon than anything else. It points to a type of thinking that is hard to explain but I’ll give it a try.
When someone has such a deeply held belief and the emotions to support it, it alters their thinking process. It’s almost like what you see when someone falls madly in love. Nothing can dissuade the person from their “love”, especially with rational arguments that perhaps the object of their love and devotion really has some serious flaws. The emotion clouds their ability to see anything negative despite it being right in front of them.

Take a look at Andy’s article and ask yourself how anyone can continue in the LDS religion once they come to the knowledge of what the BoA is all about.

MJP
Ahhhhhhh……………..maybe it has something to do with “election”????
First Peter 1:1-5
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4. To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Wouldn’t this be a fun discussion to have? I don’t know? How else do we explain those of us who have been called and responded? There was nothing in me to explain my coming to Christ. I was rebellious and an enemy of the cross of Christ.
May have something to do with people hardening their hearts toward God and He eventually gives them over to their own desires. If Mormons find their satisfaction and fulfillment in other gods, maybe God just says, “Have at it! That’s your desire. It’s yours.”

You are puttijg words into my mouth. I never said I knew nothing about the genesis of the principlesof our salvation, all I said was we do not know what has happened nor what is happening on other worlds in this creation, we just know what is happening on this world. That is what I said, nothing more, nothing less

You would accuse MJP of ” you are putting words into my mouth ” , thus implying that he has
misconstrued your statements . But this is what you have done with the testimony of the true
prophets of God , like Isaiah . You are putting words in his mouth in effective by saying that
he meant that there is only one God for this earth , this is your way of rationalizing out of the
clear testimony by him that God is uniquely God — for this earth and anywhere . That’s what
christians believe . There are no Deities above our Creator anywhere who have more power
and dominion than Him , yet Mormon leaders have taught there is — no speculation here , it’s Mormon prophets doctrine . They just could’nt leave the testimony in the Bible alone .
So people have a choice to make : follow the latter days prophets who have apostasized from
the truth taught about God by introducing their doctrines of Gods and Goddesses , or stick with
the prophets God who He used to teach about Him which are in the Bible .

It’s hard to imagine how a church claiming to be Jesus’ true church could teach such egregious
doctrines about God like Mormon leaders have . To think that the God we meet in the Bible
was in heaven at one time a Being that did not even have the know how or power to say :
” Let there be light …” ( Gen 1:3 ) because he had to be taught how to do that by a higher Deity
one who possessed more power and dominion than he . But that is Mormon doctrine , and it’s
one good reason why Mormon prophets fulfill Jesus’ prediction in Matt 24:11 .

Ralph,
It’s your responsibility to make you case with clarity. I don’t see the Christian posters here trying to mis-characterize Mormonism, but rather present it as it is. Mormonism is a full slate of conjecture and supposition. This idea of a set of principles that have sway over the “gods” of Mormonism can’t be fully understood because it’s all blue sky speculation. I could call myself a prophet, say I had received revelation and off to the races we’d go. What you believe is not supported by any religious standard.
I guess my point is, is just say whatever you want on this topic and say that it has been revealed to you. You’re speculation is equal to any prophetic leaders in your LDS religion. BTW, let me repeat that your view of the restoration is just one of many.
I think you’d do well to explore the Bible for God’s true revelation. Then come to know Him as He is which isn’t some man to god deity who is bound by some nebulous principles that sprung forth from the imagination of some false prophet.

Ok, then, Ralph, tell us the genesis if the principles of your salvation. Bear in mind that they need to be the as those that exalted Christ and his father, and his father and on we go to be credible. Otherwuse, its evidence of pure speculation where Christ gleans his standards from. That, or its being made up as they move along.

You are the one saying I put words in your mouth, so prove me wrong. Tell us what you mean.

Falcon,
I dont think its a matter of election. I dont believe in that. I think some people just have a stronger will then others. Its harder for them to set aside what they want for the will of God. Remember the rich man in your NT. He couldnt give up his riches and reputation to do what Jesus called him to do. Pharoah didnt want to lose his labor. Jonah wanted to stay in Jeruselem where a great revival was happening rather than deal with disobdient pagans.

I have been trying to sort out my beliefs for 2 years. When people are truely seeking it takes time. The biggest hurdle is setting aside what you think should be true and being open to what isactually in the text.

Thinking more about your last post, I wonder if you have really been paying attention. The entire discussion is about the Mormon Machine as we have termed it here. This means we have been talking about the eternal principles that save here on earth as well as on other planets ruled by other gods. This was the context of my posts, and nothing was taken out of context, except perhaps your understanding of it.

Now, I never questioned you knowledge of the principles of OUR salvation. I questioned their genesis in the above context. Don’t play games here and move the goal post.

Now, either you are completely missing the point, or you are completely playing games here. It not helpful, and being honest, it does not address any of the points I made about your burden. Let me spell it out for you:

You accuse me of putting words into your mouth but choose to focus on something not at issue, knowledge of the saving principles. I have no doubt that you can tell us all about what they are and they are for. However, that is not in question: what is in question is where they come from. Are they the same principles as what go on in other worlds? That last question is something you alluded to when you said you don’t know what happens there. Do you, therefore, know what principles they use?

So, your accusation that I put words in your mouth is not accurate. Your accusation then is curious. Are you really missing the point? which means I question your ability to follow these discussions and contribute to them. Or, are you obfuscating and playing games? which means you are being dishonest and lying to us?

As I stated above, you need to provide an answer, or in many ways it leaves us with the responsibility of finding the answer. You are the Mormon, who we are all told knows more about your faith than we do. So, Ralph (or any other Mormon), provide us with an answer.

I am beginning to understand your line of questioning. When you were saying that I admitted to not knowing anything, I thought you meant about the principles of salvation. These are fixed and the same for all worlds – the people need to have faith in their Saviour. However, how their ‘system’ (for want of a better word) works is what we don’t know, we only know for our world. That is to say, Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and fell, becoming carnal, sensual and devilish (to quote a scripture). Our Saviour, Jesus, came to earth and lived a perfect life then performed the Atonement so that all will be resurrected and those who have true faith in Him can receive exaltation. However, I have read that Jesus is the Saviour for all of the creation He made under the auspices of Heavenly Father, so those living on other worlds must have a slightly different system since their Saviour lived ‘off world’, and especially since in the temple presentation Satan alludes to the forbidden fruit being given out on other planets.

As far as the genesis of the plan (or the machine as you have put it), it has always been in existence. So there is no genesis. We are taught that it is something that is ad infinitum. I don’t pretend to comprehend that concept, even just living forever is difficult to comprehend, but that is what is taught at this point in time.

Cattyjane,

Just want to add – Pharaoh also didn’t want to look like a week human. Remember that the Pharaoh was considered a god to the Egyptians, so the business between Moses and Pharaoh was actually a duel between gods; the God of Israel and the god of the Egyptians. If Pharaoh lost he would not just lose a slave force, but he would also lose face and be seen as a puny human, not revered as a god.

Ralph,
Yes I understand that. That is shown in the symbology of the plagues as well. The plagues relate to each one of the gods that the Egyptians worshiped. It really interesting! But don’t miss the fact that none of those gods showed up because they were not real. It wasn’t a battle of the gods, not really. It was a revealing of the One and only true God, the God of Israel who is from everlasting to everlasting.

Ralph,
Here is a really interesting article about how Pharoah heart was hardened. My teacher taught me about how this is related to the Egyptian belief that our hearts are weighed in the after life and in order to be found worthy the heart must weigh lighter than a feather or they would go down to the crocodile god in the great depths of the earth. I found a short article that explains it. I thought you might find it an interesting read. 🙂

Just a side note. In the article it mentions God by the name of Hashem. That just means “The Name” and works like a place holder for his sacred four-letter name in Hebrew. It also helps to remind us that God is infinite and it humbles us to remind us of the endless limitations we have as humans. His sacred name represents the infinite aspect of God which is beyond human comprehension. The interesting thing is that the name is really a combination of three Hebrew words: Haya, Hoveh and Yeheyeh – past, present, and future. The idea isn’t just that God was, is and always will be, but that He transcends time and exists in the past, present and future – simultaneously. Kinda neat isn’t it! 🙂

Falcon,
You might also find that article interesting. Some of the people that I have spoken to who believe in election often use the story of Pharoahs heart being hardened by God as an example. This article does a breakdown of the Hebrew and shows that it was Pharoah who hardened his own heart and his actions are what led to his ultimate destruction.

if the principles have always been, and we claim our God has always been, do you not see a connection?

I say,

This is a great point and it gets worse.
In the Mormon view
“the principles” never change but God grows and develops.
“the principles” are universal and omnipresent but God is restricted to this creation.
“the principles” are sovereign but God’s will can be resisted
“the principles” are unified and with out parts but God is composite and divided

There is more but you get the point.

It’s pretty clear who is really the object of Mormon worship the principles that are the fount of everything not the lessor the god that they created.

FMM,
Something that keeps bothering me is the point Ralph keeps making about the Temple teaching on the garden with Adam and Eve. Where does it say that the serpent ever implies anything about this occurring on other worlds, and for that matter why would we trust what he says? He is the teacher of tov and ra, light and dark. By this church teaching that Satan was only doing what was done on other worlds and that the fall was necessary and he was “helping” them, this becomes the exact same teaching that is taught in the mystical mystery religion of Kabbalah. This is evil stuff. Satan is not the good guy and never will be. If you believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that his words were true than you cannot accept this story because Messiah condemns the people who are practicing evil and calls them the children of the devil.
Even if a church has 80% truth and 30% lies, we cannot accept it because how are we to discern what is truth and what is lies? We cannot exist in both light and darkness. Just as we cannot serve two masters.

As far as Lucifer stating the giving of the fruit on other worlds, look up the transcript and you will find it when Heavenly Father visits Adam and Eve just after they partook of the fruit.

To the Moderator,

the link on MRM to the transcript does not work anymore. (sorry, just needed to highlight this somehow in case you didn’t see it.

Fifth Monarchy Man,

You said – “God is restricted to this creation” This is not true. Heavenly Father has many other creations outside of this one. Jesus is restricted to this creation as He created it under Heavenly Father’s auspices, and He is the Saviour for it.

MJP,

I have never said any different on other MRM posts similar to this in the past. In fact, I can’t find it right now, but we are taught that Heavenly Father still has His free agency to choose good or evil, and if He decides to choose evil now, He will cease to be God and all of His creations, including this one and us, will be destroyed.

“I have never said any different on other MRM posts similar to this in the past. In fact, I can’t find it right now, but we are taught that Heavenly Father still has His free agency to choose good or evil, and if He decides to choose evil now, He will cease to be God and all of His creations, including this one and us, will be destroyed.”

You are proving my point. If he can choose to follow the path, he is dependent upon the paths existence to be able to choose. The fact of the matter is that your god is not the master, but has only perfected some unknowable principles that master him, just like the principles master us all in some way or another.

Have you read the Book of Moses? I would study more before making some of the assertions that you make. (Jesus is restricted to this creation as He created it under Heavenly Father’s auspices, and He is the Saviour for it.)

“And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:33; RLDS D&C 22:21b-21c). Also,

[We saw] “the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fullness; … and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (LDS D&C 76:20, 23-24; RLDS D&C 76:3f, 3h).

This was made clear in a poem written by Joseph Smith (based on D&C 76) called “The Answer”, which appeared in the Times and Seasons:

Hosanna forever! they open’d anon,
And the glory of God shone around where I was;
And there was the Son, at the Father’s right hand,
In a fulness of glory, and holy applause.By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow’rs. (Times and Seasons 4 (1 Feb. 1843): 82-83)

In 1832 Smith wrote,

“The light of Christ … is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; as also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; and the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things” (LDS D&C 88:7-13; RLDS D&C 85:2b-3b).

Of course, back then, Smith taught that there was only One God, who was two personages, the Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit being the mind of God. That is why Oliver Cowdery wrote in 1833 that,”

“the vast creations of the Almighty … [are] all inhabited by intelligent beings” and that “they all are [to be] visited with the light of his [Jesus’] countenance, according to the revelation of his own character.” (The Evening and the Morning Star 2 (Dec. 1833): 116).

According to the above, Jesus is not “restricted to this creation”, has created all the worlds and is the Savior of all of them. It was later “inspired” teachings that muddied up the waters in regard to this. One must have a firm grasp of the evolution of Mormon theology before making assertions such as you have made above.

I’ve posted this before, and perhaps it is relevant to this discussion as well,

THE MORMON CYCLE OF THE GODS

I. God Evolution By One Who Claimed To ‘Know’

It’s hard to tell what Mormons believe or what god they claim to worship. Why? Because they keep changing it. In 1830, when Smith penned the Book of Mormon, he claimed there was only one God, who was called the Father. He taught that this Father God came to earth and was made flesh and became the Son God. This was affirmed and made scripture as “The Lectures On Faith”, when they were included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

At this time the Holy ‘Ghost’ (as Mormons call it – or him, depending) was only the MIND of this God. (Lecture V) Later, the Book of Mormon was changed to try and erase these concepts, and the Lectures on Faith were discarded as binding scripture, but luckily we have copies of the first printing of the Book of Mormon and the Lectures and can compare the changes.

Then, by 1838 Smith was teaching that there were three gods, (the holy ‘ghost’ got promoted to a god when Smith invented the Book of Abraham) and that the Father and Son were now separate gods. Translating the Bible in 1831 he uses ‘And I God,’ in Genesis, claiming he ‘fixed’ the Bible, and in 1838 when he ‘translated’ the Book of Abraham it says ‘the gods’, (plural) for the same verses.

In Smith’s early years, he called the Father, elohim JEHOVAH, or just Jehovah. Mormons kept that name for the Father until the 1880’s, when they started calling Jesus Jehovah. Brigham Young in 1852 went off the deep end, and called the Father Michael, or Adam from the garden of Eden, and claimed he was the father of all the spirits of men, and that it was Adam’s God who was Yahovah, not Jesus, and “Elohim” was the grandfather-god. It was these three gods, Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, that made the earth and were in the Endowment Ceremony.

Then, when the church started calling Jesus Jehovah, they called Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam-god false, and started calling the father (Who was Michael according to Young) Elohim with a capital E. They simply made Jesus into Yahovah, and demoted Michael from a god to a pre-existent spirit.

From about 1910 we have them ‘officially’ stating that the father is Elohim, the Son Jehovah, and the Holy ‘Ghost’ a spirit god. Why that part of the new Godhead trio wasn’t on the creation team, is unclear. They, of course never explain how a pre-mortal spirit can become a god, when they teach it is necessary to get endowments in mortality and be married before anyone can become a god.

II. The Endless Cycle

In 1843, Smith decided to enlighten the world on how their god came to be a god. Smith said that there was a thing called ‘intelligence’ that floats around the cosmos, that can never be created and just apparently was always around, because Smith said intelligence or the ‘light of truth’ (whatever that is) cannot be created or made. (If not, then where did it come from?)

These intelligences were somehow ‘organized’ by a god, (how that first god got to be a god we are never told) or how there got to be a goddess wife for that matter. Anyway, these two gods had spiritual sex or something, and these intelligences were somehow put into the spiritual bodies of their spiritual children.

While this was going on this god creates planets for his goddess wife to put his spirit babies on, so they can become ‘like’ them. How they got from being just “light of truth” to being “light of truth” with physical bodies though, is never explained.

This god then organizes a world by the ‘priesthood’, and again how the first god even got the priesthood has never been told. And they don’t “create” anything, they just “organize”. Again, how did the first “intelligence” get to be a god? Evolution? If that is so, how did the “intelligence” get into the physical form of the first god? Who could have put it there? (I’m thinking Star Trek, The Motion Picture as one scenario)

Anyway, after organizing the matter for the planets, these gods go “down” there, and (according to Brigham Young) eat the food and become mortal again so they can bear their spirit babies as mortal children. But before this, they choose their first born spirit son to be a ‘saviour’ so he can atone for their own disobedience to their own commandment not to eat the food that they created and placed there so they can become mortal.

Dang it, since after 1905 or so, the church has called that teaching false, or lately “opinion”, or “folklore”…

Mormons now teach that the first mortal, who is ALWAYS called Adam for some reason, was just another spirit son, (possibly the 2nd or 3rd born – cause the rebellious one who they call Satan was also probably one of the two, since he was important in the Council of the gods) who they ‘placed’ there so they could command him NOT to fall, but not really mean it, so they could have their first born spirit son die a horrible death to make up for them setting things up so that the first man would actually sin when he was told not to.

And why the need for a Council? This had been going on for eternity hadn’t it? Then why have a council every single time you create a world and choose a savior? Are those spirit children not taught anything about the history of the gods? Who the first god was? Anyway…

When all the spirit babies are born for all the worlds they have created (and how they know when to stop making spirit babies for each world is not revealed either) the first born spirit son, who was resurrected if he successfully completed his mission to die that horrible death and take on the sins of the world which causes him to bleed out of every pore, kicks rebellious (2nd or 3rd) born’s butt, (for wanting to break the rules and save everyone by force) casts him into ‘outer darkness’ where he languishes and dissolves back into an intelligence (along with all other apostates), to be recycled by some future god someday.

After this, the first born resurrects all those that obeyed his gospel and got his priesthood, so they too can become gods and do the whole thing over and over again. Now Brigham Young taught that these ‘sons of perdition’ as they are called, would be recycled, but a later prophet refuted this and called that ‘false doctrine’ too.

Now, since all mortals born on earth are ‘spirit babies’ of these gods, they are considered ‘gods in embryo’ only becoming gods if they ‘accept the gospel, live ALL the commandments, and get the priesthood. They must marry as many women as they can, because the more wives they have, the more goddess wives they get, thus making it easier for those gods to make more of those spirit babies, and attain a higher exaltation as more and more gods fall under their authority.

Since the ‘prophet’ Smith says that intelligence can’t be created or made, one wonders if someday it might run out, and the spirit babies that these gods have will be born brain dead, (since the spirit babies are composed of some component of ‘intelligence’) or perhaps they will be born spiritually challenged, thus ending the ‘eternal round’ of billions upon billions of gods. There can only be so many apostates that get recycled into intelligences, and it’s only logical that someday, the supply will run out. (since intelligence can’t be created or made, there has to be a limited supply, right?)

And where are these “intelligences”? Do they just float about the cosmos like in some kind of Star Trek episode? How does the “intelligence” get into the spirit babies? How did the first “intelligence” get to be more intelligent than the rest? Did he go to intelligence school? I mean the questions are just endless, and none of the answers make any sense.

III. Conclusion?

This my friends, is the Mormon ‘cycle of the gods’ as revealed by so-called ‘modern prophets’. And Joseph Smith said the Trinity is hard to explain! How about there is ONE GOD, and we are his creation? Isn’t that a breath of fresh air compared to the Mormon explanation of god/gods?

Earlier in this thread I made a comparison to the legal rules of civil procedure wherein failing to respond can be seen as an admission. Ralph finally said something on this, and all he really said was that the principles have always been and he does not know what goes on in other worlds. This is pretty much an admission what Aaron wrote, though admittedly he never said that straight forwardly. He has not addressed the question addressed in the article suggesting the Mormon god is no god at all but a nameless set of principles, even though he has said that the principles exist forever, and their god had to master them.

His answer is nothing but a dodge of the question, and it is not hard to close the gap. Aaron’s suggestion is correct.